Public Administration 2021 Paper II 50 marks Critically examine

Q6

(a) Budget proposals in the Parliament / State Legislatures fail to ensure their effective scrutiny. Identify the factors which constrain effective scrutiny of the budget proposals. (20 marks) (b) 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts aimed at making the third tier of government more powerful and effective for democratic decentralization. Critically examine the extent to which this goal has been transformed into reality. (20 marks) (c) National Human Rights Commission is handicapped by its jurisdictional limitations of not being able to investigate the cases of violation of human rights by the armed forces. Discuss. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) संसद/राज्य विधायिकाएँ बजट प्रस्तावों की प्रभावी संवीक्षा को आश्वस्त करने में असफल रही हैं। बजट प्रस्तावों की प्रभावी संवीक्षा में बाधित करने वाले कारकों को चिन्हित कीजिये। (20 अंक) (b) 73वें तथा 74वें संवैधानिक संशोधन अधिनियमों का उद्देश्य लोकतांत्रिक विकेन्द्रीकरण के लिए शासन के तृतीय स्तर को अधिक शक्तिशाली एवं प्रभावी बनाने से था। आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिये कि यह लक्ष्य किस सीमा तक वास्तविकता में रूपांतरित हुआ। (20 अंक) (c) सशस्त्र बलों द्वारा मानवाधिकारों के उल्लंघन के मामलों में अन्वेषण नहीं कर पाने की न्यायिक क्षेत्राधिकार सीमाओं के कारण राष्ट्रीय मानवाधिकार आयोग बाधाग्रस्त है। विवेचना कीजिये। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Public Administration questions

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically examine. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'critically examine' for part (b) demands balanced analysis with evidence-based judgment, while part (a) requires 'identify' (factor enumeration) and part (c) requires 'discuss' (explanatory treatment). Allocate approximately 40% word budget to part (a) given 20 marks, 40% to part (b) given equal marks with higher analytical demand, and 20% to part (c). Structure: brief composite introduction → systematic treatment of each sub-part with clear demarcation → integrated conclusion addressing democratic accountability across all three tiers.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Constraints on budget scrutiny—limited time for discussion (Railway Budget merger reduced scrutiny window), technical complexity defeating legislators, whipped voting undermining committee recommendations, lack of expertise among MPs/MLAs, dominance of executive in budget formulation, and weak follow-up on PAC/CAG recommendations
  • Part (b): 73rd Amendment achievements—mandatory reservation (women, SC/ST), fixed 5-year tenure, State Election Commission, Finance Commission recognition; limitations—state control over devolution (Article 243G/G-O), inadequate fiscal autonomy, delayed/irregular elections in some states, bureaucratic capture through CEO-DC alignment
  • Part (b): 74th Amendment urban reality—municipal corporations' weak revenue base, parastatal dominance (water boards, development authorities), 74th CAA implementation gaps in mega-cities, limited 'meaningful autonomy' per Sivaramakrishnan Committee recommendations
  • Part (c): NHRC's structural handicap—Section 19 of Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 requiring prior intimation to Defence Ministry, AFSPA-operated areas exclusion, reliance on court-monitored investigations, limited follow-up power over armed forces; contrast with SHRCs in some states having broader access
  • Cross-cutting theme: Democratic deficit across three tiers—parliamentary oversight failure (a), local self-government emasculation (b), and human rights accountability gap in security sector (c)—requiring institutional strengthening and genuine power devolution

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise understanding demonstrated: for (a) distinguishes between legislative 'discussion' and 'scrutiny' with specific reference to Article 112-117 procedures; for (b) correctly interprets 'democratic decentralization' as substantive self-governance not mere election; for (c) accurately cites Section 19(2) limitation and AFSPA Section 6 immunityBasic definitions correct but conflates terms—treats 'scrutiny' as synonymous with 'debate', describes 73rd/74th amendments only by listing schedules without analyzing power distribution, mentions NHRC limitation without statutory referenceFundamental errors—confuses Vote on Account with budget passage, states 73rd Amendment created municipalities, claims NHRC has no powers over armed forces whatsoever (overstating limitation)
Theoretical anchor20%10Deploys appropriate frameworks: for (a) Wildavsky's 'politics of the budgetary process' or Premchand's budgetary governance analysis; for (b) Lijphart's consensus democracy vs. majoritarianism, or Ostrom's polycentric governance; for (c) theories of state security vs. human rights trade-off, or Foucault's disciplinary power in military contextsMentions relevant thinkers without integration—names Chelliah for tax reform without connecting to scrutiny, cites Panchayati Raj without theoretical framing, refers to 'human rights theories' genericallyNo theoretical engagement or inappropriate frameworks—uses New Public Management for budget scrutiny, applies federalism theory incorrectly to local government, or introduces irrelevant globalization theories
Indian administrative examples20%10Specific evidence across all parts: for (a) 16th Lok Sabha's truncated budget session, Standing Committee on Finance's limited amendment powers, Kerala's participatory budgeting contrast; for (b) Karnataka's Panchayat Raj Act implementation vs. Bihar's delayed elections, Mumbai's BMC revenue paradox; for (c) Pathribal fake encounter case, NHRC's 2016 recommendation on AFSPA, Manipur extra-judicial killingsGeneral references without specificity—mentions 'budget passed in hurry', 'some states don't hold elections', 'NHRC can't do much in Northeast' without naming cases, years, or comparative instancesFabricated or irrelevant examples—cites non-existent committees, confuses 73rd with 74th Amendment state illustrations, or uses foreign examples (UK Parliament scrutiny) for Indian context
Reform / policy angle20%10Constructive prescriptions with feasibility assessment: for (a) NITI Aayog's 2017 recommendation for outcome budgeting linkage, demand for Budget Committee with amendment powers; for (b) 2nd ARC's local government empowerment, own revenue enhancement through property tax digitization; for (c) repeal of AFSPA Section 6, NHRC structural autonomy through constitutional status, specialized human rights courtsGeneric reform suggestions—'more time for budget', 'give more powers to panchayats', 'make NHRC stronger' without specific mechanisms or acknowledging implementation constraintsNo reform suggestions or politically infeasible demands—abolition of Rajya Sabha for budget scrutiny, constitutional amendment making panchayats sovereign, complete AFSPA repeal without transitional framework
Conclusion & forward look20%10Synthesizes three tiers into coherent democratic accountability thesis—parliamentary scrutiny, local self-governance, and security sector accountability as interdependent pillars of substantive democracy; references 75th year of Republic/Amrit Kaal context; offers measured optimism with institutional reform roadmapSeparate conclusions for each part without integration; restates main points; offers vague 'hope for better future' without concrete pathwayNo conclusion or abrupt ending; contradicts own analysis by sudden optimistic assertion; introduces entirely new arguments in conclusion

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from Public Administration 2021 Paper II